Chapter Nine: The Case of the Ingenious A

Table of Contents 

I am revising this chapter 

 Chapter Nine: The Case of the Ingenious A

116. Law's 1800 house became the fulcrum of the New Varnum Hotel

Some 42 years after Thornton and Tayloe died in 1828 and shortly before his own death in 1871, one of the three surviving children of Tayloe, who had thirteen, credited Thornton, his father's old friend and lately recalled as the "original" designer of the Capitol, for designing the Octagon. In an 1888 magazine article about the Octagon, restoration architect Glenn Brown accepted the family legend. He also proposed the Octagon as the headquarters of the American Intitute of Architects, which was then in Manhattan. In 1896, he followed up the 1888 article with an article about Thornton's other designs, and especially cleared up doubts recently cast on Thornton's Capitol design. He also credited him for designing and superintending construction of two houses that the General Washington had built just north of the Capitol to house congressmen. 

Work on the Octagon and the General's houses began in 1799. That same year, work began on Thomas Law's five story brick house just south of the Capitol. It had oval rooms like the Octagon. In 1901, a lawyer named Allen Clark wrote a dual biography of Greenleaf and Law, but didn't mention who designed Law's house. However, Clark introduced the name of William Lovering into the conversation about who designed old houses still standing. He credited Lovering for building Greenleaf's houses and designing The Maples. 

W. B. Bryan's 1914 authoritative history of the "national capital," cited Mrs. Thornton's just published 1800 diary and sang Thornton praises: "...her husband being engaged in preparing detailed plans of the work to be done at the capitol, as well as other architectural work he was engaged in at the time, as, for example, making the plans and superintending the building of the Octagon House...." But Bryan, a local "newspaper man," also dug into the commissioners' records and found an order to lay out a building lot for Lovering at the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. He noted that "If Mr. Lovering was the principal in this enterprise, and not merely the architect, he did not carry it out, as a house was built there in the latter part of 1799 by Thomas Law...." Bryan also cited Clark's research and described Lovering as combining "what was quite common then and for many years later the business of builder with the profession of architect."(1) 

That's a good point, but doesn't quite describe what Lovering combined. He could also superintend the construction of several houses, each for a different client, at the same time. He commonly agreed to visit each project at least once a week. That Law's and Tayloe's houses were over a mile away from each was not a problem, especially if he had designed both. That he had designed Law's house obviously made it easier for him to lay out Lot 1 in Square 689 and superintend its construction. 

Division Sheet for Square 689

In his 1989 book on the Octagon, Ridout  identified Lovering, not Thornton, as superintending architect at the Octagon. That raised the possibility that builder/architect Lovering designed the Octagon, too. That makes sense since both the Octagon and Law's house face an intersection with an acute angle. However, Ridout dismissed Lovering as a mere carpenter. In his 1995 discussion of Thornton as a residential architect, C. M. Harris dismissed designs credited to Lovering as "conventional and unadventurous." He also credited Thornton as the designer of Law's house. Thus, Bryan's suspicion that Lovering was its architect was wrong.(3)

Although undated and not widely known, the contract for building the house signed by Law and Lovering is extant. Archivists mislabeled the eleven page document as being written "circa 1794," so it escaped the scrutiny of researchers interested in what Law was planning to build in 1798. The document begins "Particular description and manner of building a house for Thomas Law Esq. fronting the side of New Jersey Avenue and South C Street on Square 689 for $5800 as per drawings marked A.B.C.D.... " The document then specifies building materials, dimensions, and the use of latches, sashes, etc. The "elliptical rooms" are mentioned but not described save for their height, 12 feet and 10 feet respectively, and that their walls were to be framed by wood scantling. Unfortunately, drawings A.B.C.D. have not been found. The contract does not explicitly say that Lovering drew the designs.(4)

The house floor plans with oval rooms in Thornton's papers don’t resemble it. Nor is there any reason to assume that Thornton’s yet to be built oval chambers in the Capitol inspired Law. Hoban’s oval rooms in the President’s house had already been built. Oval rooms in houses became fashionable in late 18th century Britain and France. New country seats had them. In 1786, while on a prolonged stay in England, William Hamilton sent instructions on how to build Woodlands, then outside Philadelphia but now in that city's Fairmount Park. His mansion has two notable oval rooms, a parlor and dining room. Another mansion now in the park, Lemon Hill, which was built in 1800, also has oval rooms. An architectural historian notes "its use of ovals and circular spaces suggests a French influence." On 10th and Chestnut Streets, then comfortably outside the crowded city, L'Enfant's very French mansion built for Robert Morris also had "curvilinear elements," but the architect who gave the federal city so many angled avenues had none to address in Philadelphia. L'Enfant did not use ovals. However, putting oval rooms in a confined townhouse, as opposed to a rambling country house or a monumental building like the Capitol or President's house, would be more challenging.(5) 

 

The only sketch of the floor plan is in a letter Benjamin Latrobe wrote to the gentleman who bought the house from Law in 1815. The buyer wanted to upgrade the heating system. Latrobe suggested "a handsome grate" for the principal oval room, an oval marked "B" in his sketch. The ballroom in Latrobe's sketch was in the next door house that Law financed but another man contracted to have built. Through that arrangement, a judge would give Law credit toward fulfilling his requirement to build 166 houses.(6)

 

In an 1800 letter, Law delighted in describing his house: “on the ground floor there is a handsome oval room 32 by 24 and a room adjoining 20 by 28 - the oval room is so handsomely furnished that I wish to leave the eagle round glasses, carpet and couches in them as they are suited to the room - above stairs is a dressing room and a bedroom 21 by 20 - a center room with a fireplace about 17 by thirteen, an oval room 30 by 25 - and a room 20 by 11 with a fireplace - the same upstairs - say 8 bed rooms or 7 bedrooms and an oval sitting room…." One entrance and stairway on New Jersey Avenue, marked A in Latrobe's sketch, granted access to each floor. The lower larger room was a domesticated concourse with a view of the commercial confluence of the Potomac and Eastern Branch a mile away. Law was so excited by fan shaped kitchen below the oval that he sketched it in his letter.(7) 

 

In deciding whether Thornton or Lovering designed Law's largest oval room dimensions are important. By 1798, Thornton was able to share his floor plan of the Capitol with Law and point to his grand oval vestibule "about 114 feet in diameter" that might be built in the years ahead. In 1794, Lovering squeezed a 32 foot long room into one of Greenleaf's townhouse. Mr. Henry, Greenleaf’s secretaire economic, was so impressed that he thought the townhouse should be a hotel. Law's largest room was 32 feet long. Of course, what might have been more memorable in 1798 the 20 small houses Lovering designed and built on South Capitol and N Streets. However, after Lovering lost his salaried job, for which he rarely got paid, and began advertising his skills in October 1797, his Alexandria newspaper notice added to the headline "(From London)." While Law made his money in India, his brother was London's most prominent lawyer. Was Lovering trying to remind Law that he could cater to the upper classes? While not designed by Lovering, the first house in the city that the Laws lived in, the so-called Honeymoon House at the west end of N Street SW, was finished by Lovering.(8)

Meanwhile, by early 1798, Thornton and Law had become close friends and both were full of ideas that they felt compelled to share. Their friendship was just beginning which might suggest that both men would be even more eager to share ideas. Law's initial dealings with Thornton had been unpleasant. As a board member, he voted not to give Law deeds unconditionally. In 1795, when Law needed an architect, he hired Hallet. Law had cultivated Hadfield to keep track of work at the Capitol. In 1796, he was enraged that Thornton spread a rumor that the General wanted his private residence in the city on Peter's Hill near Georgetown. In 1797, Law faulted Thornton for not moving to Capitol Hill. At the end of that year, he accused Scott and Thornton of not removing their office to Capitol to placate a developer who promised to build two three story houses if they did. Then after a visit to Philadelphia, Law realized that President Adams had no interest in the city. Law could no longer go over the heads of the commissioners. He needed a friend on the board and Thornton was the most congenial and accessible.(9) 

Thornton coveted a friendship with Law because thanks to his marriage he was part of the General's family with easy entree to Mount Vernon. Mrs. Law was two years younger than Mrs. Thornton. In the spring of 1798, Mrs. Thornton occasionally jotted down dates of their shining moments. In May, the Thorntons dined with the Washingtons at the Laws in their so-called second house on New Jersey Avenue which preceded the next and largest third house. On the weekend of June 24, 1798, the Thorntons had tea with the Laws.(10) Gentlemen generally didn't talk over business matters at tea, and Thornton was not in the business of designing or building houses. Law would not insult him by assuming that just because he designed Capitol, he would design his house.  But letting Thornton take a look at Lovering's design make perfect sense. 

There is phrase in the draft of a letter that Thornton wrote that same weekend that suggests that Law did show Thornton the design for his new house. In the personal letter to Pickering that he didn't send, Thornton explained Hadfield's insubordination in regards to the Executive office design, and that "the board applied to Mr. Lovering to calculate the expense of erecting such a building." After "Mr. Lovering," Thornton wrote and then crossed out "an ingenious A." Evidently, the rhetorician realized that the secretary of state might misinterpret that aside as a compliment relating to Lovering's plain Executive office design. Architectural historian Pamela Scott rues that instead of ''Hadfield’s sophisticated, up-to-date neoclassical building," the city got "a traditional, rather old-fashioned Georgian one."(12) Lovering asked the board to hire him to build his design. But the board put his design out for bids and Lovering's was the third lowest. So he did not show his genius as a building contractor for the commissioners. In January 1798, the commissioners asked him to evaluate sashes offered by carpenters for the Capitol. He found that one needed an extra inch, with another static electricity might be a worry. As for the third, the molding was too thin. His ability to school everyone might make Lovering an ingenious carpenter but not an "ingenious A."(13) Thornton had never commented on the design features of the Twenty Buildings and nothing about the small houses likely pleased such an exponent of grandeur. That leaves a current project, the design for Law's house, as what likely was on Thornton's mind when he almost complimented Lovering.(11) 

But is there evidence that there was a design when Thornton allegedly saw it on June 24, 1798? According to the commissioners' records, the lot for Law's house was surveyed on September 12. However, on July 10, 1798, Lovering asked the commissioners to apply their payment for his Executive Office design as down payment on lot 12 in Square 691, southwest of the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. He likely made the request because he knew Law was going to build on the intersection. That suggests that Law had Lovering's design by July 10.(14)

In 1801, another client of Lovering's described how the architect designed and contracted to build houses. The Belgian emigre Henri Joseph Stier broke off negotiations with Benjamin Latrobe for a country mansion in nearby Maryland. Latrobe struck him as “one of those who do not finish their work." He sought out Lovering. In 1800, in a letter to Greenleaf, Law mentioned that “Steer” was staying in one of his houses. Perhaps Law told Stier about Lovering.

Stier's letters explained how Lovering tried to win a client. Lovering came, Stier wrote to his son, “expressly to show me three different plans, rather ingenious but complicated, and with unattractive facades.... He has proposed to direct my construction with such a plan as I will give him, to attend to the progress and the designs in detail, to come twice each week, and that if I want to hire enough workmen to finish it in twelve months, he will do it for $600....”

In her introduction to a collection of Stier's daughter's letters, Margaret Callcott writes that Lovering "was eager to make himself agreeable to the wealthy Belgium, and all during March [1801] he met regularly with the Stiers and gave them tours around completed houses around Washington." They signed a contract on March 24, 1801, a month after first discussing the project. Architectural historians give Lovering little credit for the design of Riverdale since Stier based the design on his house in Belgium.(15)

127. Stier's Riverdale

Lovering might have started working on Law’s design around June 12, a month before Law asked him to draw up a contract. Of course, that Thornton reacted positively to an ingenious floor plan on June 24  doesn’t necessarily prove that it was Lovering's design. It might have been Law’s idea drawn by Lovering, but it certainly wasn’t Thornton’s idea.

When going over the lot with the surveyor, Lovering decided the house needed another story. As well as facing an angled intersection, Lot 1 in Square 689 had a slope angling down to C Street. It could not be leveled to accommodate the design. Law wrote an addendum to the contract, already 8 pages long, that explained that “Mr. Lovering will have an additional story to make….” The addendum also stipulated that "any alteration in the above plan to be allowed for by either party as may be settled between themselves or arbitrators." It designated Hoban and another builder to “arbitrate on any points of dispute.” There was no mention of Thornton. That wasn't a case of two gentlemen being careful not to stain their relationship with business. In August 1799, Thornton wrote to Law primarily about Thornton helping to arbitrate a business dispute unrelated to the house. At that time, three months of work had been done on his house, but Thornton didn't mention that. He closed the letter, in rather flowery language, with thoughts on friendship and the doings of the larger Mount Vernon family where Law was at that moment and of which he longed to be included: "I often wish to see you, but you will say this is a selfish desire. I own it while you are at so charming a place."(16)(24)

A misunderstanding Lovering had with the commissioners also suggests that Thornton didn't design Law's house. Lovering still had one more payment to make to the board for the lot he bought near Law's houses. He asked the board that future payments for his Executive Office design be used to cover another payment on the lot. The board claimed it had never said it would pay him more than $300. They advised him to take cash and not the lot. On October 4, he handed the board a letter protesting their not paying him more: “I devoted Chearfully my time and Attention to the Offices and have saved you at least 10,000 in particularizing the Building & c. and tho it would be natural for you Gentlemen unacquainted with the trouble of architectural details to under estimate my Services.…” Would he have insulted Thornton if he had been involved in designing Law’s house?(17) The commissioners didn't budge, for Lovering's own good.

At that moment Lovering's reputation was in tatters because he was broke and facing law suits from Nicholson's creditors. Work on Law's house would not begin until April 1799. Out of pity, the commissioners offered to let him relinquish the lot and take $300 in cash that he desperately needed. He refused and reminded them "my situation after long residence in this city and after having superintended the construction of two-thirds of the houses in the city entitles me to your consideration for facilities of every kind, as my Misfortune originates in being over zealous and becoming security for my employers and not in any misconduct of my own." 

With the commissioners, he refrained from describing how desperate his situation was, but, while never demanding money, he did share his misery with Nicholson. He explained that he had been arrested for nonpayment. The judge would not let Lovering post bail because he did not own any property. That's why he needed the commissioners help. The sheriff posted bail for him, which allowed him to dun Lovering for petty cash on demand. For Lovering, the alternative was going to jail. To end the harassment by creditors, Lovering decided to seek protection under Maryland's Insolvency Act. If granted, he could work without the money that  passed through his hands being attached by creditors, but then creditors could take what property he had. But he had "some prospect of doing business next spring." However, to get protection, he had to advertise his intention to ask for protection under the law. His advertisement excited his creditors, who then leaned on the sheriff to arrest him. On December 4, Lovering wrote to Nicholson that “the advertisement of my intentions has been a great injury to me for I should have had several buildings.…"(22) 

A friend of Nicholson's warned the speculator of the possible loss of “a man of abilities." Nicholson could do nothing but Law kept him in the country.(19) However, there is no explicit evidence that Law credited Lovering for designing his house. That can be attributed at first to Lovering's reputation being under a cloud. Who wants to discuss doing business with a bankrupt? After work began on the house, Lovering may have so successfully involved Law in making choices about what was to be done, that he saw the project not as the work of another man's genius, but as collaborative project for which Lovering was being paid. It was Law's house, after all.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that Law alluded to Thornton having anything to do with house. That is surprising given that in November 1799, Law's, the General's and Tayloe's houses were much on gentlemen's minds thanks to the General's November visit to the city. In the letter Law wrote in April 1800 describing his house, he mentioned the General’s inspection. Law claimed that he “was so pleased with it, that he said 'I would never recommend to a wife to counteract her husband's wishes but in this instance, and I advise Mrs. Law not to agree to a sale.'" The General also saw the two houses he was having built to board congressmen. Because he spent a night with the Peters across Rock Creek, could easily have checked on Tayloe’s house. On his return to Mount Vernon, he was accompanied by Law and Commissioners Thornton and White. There is no reason to expect that those gentlemen would celebrate William Lovering for what he did, but they might give their fellow gentleman and charming friend Thornton a pat on the back. 

Then, two weeks after the General’s visit, Thornton joined White in writing about Law’s and Tayloe’s houses. They formed the board and wrote a letter alerting President Adams that for lack of money the President's house might not be finished when he moved to the city. If so, they claimed there were three houses that might be rented each better than what the president rented in Philadelphia. In a private letter sent in December, White revealed what houses he and Thornton had in mind: Tayloe's house, Law's house and a mansion that Daniel Carroll had built in 1798 just south of Capitol Hill.(25) The shepherds of Thornton's future reputation don't mention that visit to Mount Vernon, or the head's up to the president about a temporary residence. It would seem Ridout and Harris would note Thornton's gentlemanly circumspection for evidently not breathing a word about his triumphs. For Law too, it would have been mum's the word. 

It has been left to Thornton's wife to prove that her husband designed Law's house. Ridout, Harris and others cite Mrs. Thornton's confidential 1800 diary. She wrote an entry for every day of that year. On January 12, she and her husband climbed through Law's kitchen window along with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Peter. Harris and Pamela Scott cite the diary to prove that Thornton designed Law’s house, but they shy from actually quoting the diary. Harris merely opines that "Thornton's role... is partially but substantially documented by his wife's diary for 1800." Scott puts it this way: "It was designed by William Thornton, and was 'a very pleasant roomy house' according to Anna Maria Thornton.” 

She wrote more about their inspection of the house. They found the house locked. So, they "entered by the kitchen Window and went all over it— It is a very pleasant roomy house but the Oval drawing room is spoiled by the lowness of the Ceiling, and two Niches, which destroy the shape of the Room….” Her only other mention of the house came on February 17: "Mr. Law is fixed in his new house and is quite pleased with it...."(26)

Certainly, that Thornton climbed through the kitchen window to get inside suggests he had some authority, though his friendship with Law and his touring with Mrs. Law's sister might have given him sufficient license to do that. But how does one account for Mrs. Thornton's criticism of the oval drawing room's low ceiling? Her husband likely informed it. In 1797, Thornton had written to Dr. Fothergill about the Capitol's as yet unbuilt grand oval vestibule that was "full of broad prominent lights and broad deep shadows." He originally called the grand oval vestibule “the dome.” Perhaps, when he saw the floor plan for Law’s house, he did not understand that the oval rooms would be 12 and 10 feet high. Fitting oval rooms into a five story townhouse was alien to Thornton's sensibilities. By the way, Tayloe's oval room also had a 12 foot high ceiling.

 

Thornton did draw a design for Law, and the excitement Mrs. Thornton exhibited is striking. On February 27, 1800, she wrote "Dr. T- received a note from Mr. Law enclosing a rough Sketch of a plan for a Stables & c. behind his house which is five stories before and three behind, which Dr. T- had promised to lay down for him as he had suggested the ideas - The Stables and Carriage house are to be built at the bottom of the lot and the whole yard to be covered over at one Story height, and gravelled over, so as to have a flat terrass from the Kitchen story all over the extremity of the lot.... Dr. T- engaged in the evening drawing Mr. Law's plan." That was her only description of a Thornton design. The boarding house on Square 689 would advertise that it could accommodate 60 horses but evidently no one ever credited Thornton, which was likely fine with a gentleman of his reputation. Also, any inference that the genius who designed the stables behind a house also designed the house is dangerous in this case. There is conclusive documentary evidence that Lovering designed the stables and coach house next to Tayloe’s house. The plans are annotated in Lovering’s hand.(27) 

Ridout suggests that Thornton's design for the Octagon was the catalyst for his life long friendship with Tayloe. Actually blood horses were, but it's a nice conceit. As it turned out, Thornton's friendship with Law did not last long. In March 1801, Thornton wrote to Law and lamented: “For a long time past I imagined that I perceived in your behavior a reserve and distance which forbade that free communication with you that frequently took place from a sincere friendship on my part, which I flattered myself was mutual.” The matter was that Law thought Thornton was favoring the west end of the city. Obviously, Thornton had not designed Law’s premier house in the east end.(28)

The project on the other side of Capitol Hill was another matter. That he had not been asked to design the General’s houses hurt, and for six months, Thornton plotted to save his reputation from the slight. 

Go to Chapter 10

1. Brown, Glenn 1896, "Dr. William Thornton, Architect." Architectural Record, 1896 , Vol. VI, July-September (page 53ff) pdf.; Clark, Allen Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City; W. H. Bryan, History of the National Capitol, vol. 1 pp. 278-9, 315-6 

2. Ibid. p. 311

3.Harris, Papers of William Thornton, p. 588; Ridout V, Orlando  Building the Octagon,  The American Institute of Architects Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.

4. Mount Vernon Museum, "Particular description..."   of the house for Thomas Law built on Square 689 

5.Corosino, Catherine Ann, The Woodlands: Documentation of an American Interior, Thesis, U. of Penn, 1997; Smith, Ryan, Robert Morris's Folly: The Architectural and Financial Failures of an American Founder, 2014.

6. Scott, Pamela with Charles Carroll Carter and William DiGiacomantonio, Creating Capitol Hill: Place Proprietors, and Peoples. United States Capitol Historical Society, Washington, D.C., 2018.

7. Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams Family Papers; Pratt v. Law, No. 659, , US Supreme Court, 9 Cranch 456 pp. 779ff

8. Alexandria Advertiser  9 October 1797, p. 4; Edward Law did not become Lord Ellenborough and Lord Chief Judge until 1802.

9.  Law to GW 6 October 1796 footnote 7.& 4 February 1797 & 8 February 1797 & 27 December 1797.

10. AMT papers on-line volume one, image 83. 

11. WT to Pickering 23-25 June 1798 draft; 

12. Scott, Pamela, "A Communication Between the Offices: Designing the Executive Office Building 1791-1800." White House Historical Association

13. Lovering to commrs., June 21, 1798; commrs. proceedings June 20, 1798; Lovering to commrs., January 9, 1798, commrs. records.; proceedings 12 January 1798;

14. Lovering to Commissioners, 10 July, Commrs. records.

15. Margaret Law Callcott, editor, Mistress of Riverdale, pp. 28-9;

16. Op. cit. , "Particular description..."  

17. Lovering to Commrs. 4 October, 1798, Commrs. records.

18. Lovering to Nicholson 14 January 1798, 30 March 1798, 

19.  Lovering to Nicholson 30 March 1798, ** August 1798; Samuel Ward to Nicholson, August 31, 1798.

20. Cranch to his mother 16 January 1799

21. Lovering spring

22. Lovering to Nicholson 4 December 1798

23.  Lovering to Jefferson 16 June 1802 

24. WT to Law 1 August 1799 Harris pp. 404-5

25. Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams papers; GW diary 10 November 1799 ; Commrs to Adams, 21 November 1799; White to Adams 13 December 1799 ( the editors of these on-line papers transcribed "Taylor" but the letter clearly reads "Tayloe;")

26. Mrs. Thornton's Diary p. 94; Scott, Creating Capitol Hill, p. 129; Harris p. 586.

27. Ibid. p. 112

28. WT to Law 9 March 1801, Harris pp. 553-4